Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UgxBn-0003kj-Oj for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 27 May 2013 13:10:15 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from 2508ds5-oebr.1.fullrate.dk ([90.184.5.129] helo=mail.ceptacle.com) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1UgxBk-0007I6-Rc for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 27 May 2013 13:10:15 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ceptacle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C12E72F472AB for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 15:10:06 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ceptacle.com Received: from mail.ceptacle.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (server.ceptacle.private [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3+o-h11KjUgJ for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 15:10:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from MacGronager.local (cpe.xe-3-1-0-415.bynqe10.dk.customer.tdc.net [188.180.67.254]) by mail.ceptacle.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E75012F47298 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 15:10:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <51A35B2C.7060802@ceptacle.com> Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 15:10:04 +0200 From: Michael Gronager User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: <51A32A30.8040504@ceptacle.com> In-Reply-To: <51A32A30.8040504@ceptacle.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. X-Headers-End: 1UgxBk-0007I6-Rc Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP0032 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 13:10:15 -0000 Commenting on my own mail... Rereading the BIP, it occurs to me that the private derivation is actually intentional. So: (m/i/j/k)*G = (M/i/j/k), but (m/i'/j/k)*G <> (M/i/j/k) (M/i'/j/k => ERROR) But: ((m/i')*G)/j/k = (m/i'/j/k)*G So, the motivation for the private derivation is to avoid the known (K, c) and known k_i => k known too! I fear that many will fall in this trap, though... /Michael